Tonight the first item before us is of particular relevance because of what’s recently been going on in the news. I have listed it on the agenda as “Do we want to engage a celebrity as our public spokesperson? Pros and cons.” What has been in the news, of course, as you are all aware, is that tying your brand to a celebrity has a potential downside. If that celebrity turns out to have, shall we say, both feet in his mouth? Think of Lance Armstrong. On the other hand there are plenty of examples of heroes who have kept their reputations pure and have undoubtedly helped to sell extra thousands of sneakers or watches in spite of serious accusations of labor exploitation both overseas and domestic. Despite the Supreme Court’s definition of companies as persons it is hard for the public to love a public corporation. It is much easier to love a famous and beloved spokesperson who presents him or herself as the company’s representative. So I propose that we consider at this meeting whether or not we are justified in hiring such a spokesperson, if we can find a suitable one. The cost in dollars comes right out of the cash drawer, since there is no reliable way to measure its effect, and the more beloved the spokesperson the higher the fee we will have to pay for the endorsement.

Shuffling of feet and papers, as participants, old hands familiar with the game, get ready to show their serious concern.

First, the pros. A beloved celebrity has a faithful following and that will include many worshippers who will want to wear their football player’s jersey or their tennis player’s watch or eat what he or she eats or read what he or she reads. At least some part of this adoration should in theory be translatable into strengthened brand loyalty. The more your brand can be identified with an accepted hero the more you should be able to expect it to be respected in the public arena.

This sets off the usual variety of off -the-record gestures and expressions that members have perfected over the years to ensure that the chair and the other members understand their reactions, but that won’t appear in the official minutes.

Another plus : In the event that something goes wrong with your plans, the calming voice of your celebrity can be counted on to offset some of the unhappiness generated by whatever catastrophe has befallen your enterprise. He or she is, so to speak, the first-line buffer against immediate judgment, giving you a little time to devise a believable defense. A reassuring smile on a recognizable human face is a far better initial counter tactic against any accusations than a formal statement by a hired spokesman who can be expected to be both on the company payroll and biased by his own share of complicity. There is a lot of reassurance in the message : “I still eat _____, or I still use ______, so how dangerous can it really be?”

More sub rosa signs of agreement or disagreement — raised eyebrows, barely perceptible nods of assent, a half-hidden thumbs-up while reaching for a water bottle.

On the other hand (rustling as everyone sits up a little straighter as a sign of increased attentiveness) there are the dangers, exemplified by the Armstrong case, for example, that if your spokesperson turns out to have a secret history of groping or cheating or taking too strong a position on a controversial issue you risk having your brand seriously damaged by association. The payment of millions of dollars of endorsement money to “heroes” who turn out to be flawed is not easy to defend to the voters who will decide whether or not you are returned to your organization. A public disavowal of any real connection with your actual product may not come quickly enough to ensure that the association will be erased without harm.

A low rumble of throat-clearing signals that the message has been heard.

And a mis-chosen representative’s fall represents a waste of several millions of dollars paid to the representative and his or her agent in the first place, most likely largely under the table and hence unrecoverable. This can be the subject of embarrassing investigations as to who approved the choice and whether there is any possibility of provable kickbacks or nepotism.

Several sotto voce comments are distinctly heard, but again not clearly enough to appear in the minutes. The word “investigation” rouses a particularly strong reaction.

So, gentlemen (and one lady, excuse me, ma’am for at first overlooking your presence) I offer a motion to turn these deliberations over to you for a more thorough examination. Does the Republican National Committee want to engage Donald Trump as its spokesman or not? Do I hear a second?